Friday, 10 October 2014

The concept of transparency in local government is a
laudable one – but only if that transparency extends beyond basic
information and into detail.

Every month (or so) Boston Borough Council issues details of
the way it has spent our money, and at present the list goes as far as July –
even though we are halfway through October.

Any sum above £250 is listed, and the use the money has been
put to is itemised – but sometimes, that isn’t enough.

We are often curious about how some of the spending is
approved – or whether someone simply has a good idea and signs a chit to pay
for it, and also at what point someone questions the level of outgoings.

It also makes us wonder at what level a sum needs to be
subject to authorisation or discussion – and even relevance.

The situation in Boston perfectly demonstrates the fears
recently expressed by the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, which
said that the hopes that an army of "armchair auditors" would step in
to use data published under a new openness regime had been thwarted by the failure
to present the information in a useful way – and that councillors who
"may not have sufficient capacity" to do the job thoroughly made the
problem worse.

***

One such example is the Geoff Moulder Leisure Centre – which
by now must surely have far exceeded the budget set for improvements and
upgrading

Regular readers will recall that the council – excuse the pun – baled out the
Moulder pool by creating a five-year partnership (that’s a club) with the
Witham Schools Federation and Boston Amateur Swimming Club, which started late
in 2011.

The plan involved spending £195,000 from reserves, with
£150,000 being repaid over five years from the “partners,” and the remaining
£45,000 being funded from the capital reserve – which means written off.

By our rough calculations the total reached more than a
quarter of a million pounds very rapidly, and has since risen still further – with
items such as “GMLC equipment” costing £54,000, and alterations at Creations
Gym for more than £71,000.

We have noted spending such as £1,300 on three 42-inch
plasma TVs, “rubber tiles and borders”
cost £7,000, locker refurbishment totalled £5,149, resurfacing the car park
came to £1,770, and various sundry items swallowed another £1,800.

And still it goes on – July mentions a further £27,000 on
solar panels … adding to the £125,000 already spent, which appears to have made
no appreciable inroads into the centre’s electricity bill.

But who has the overview on all of this?

Is it a portfolio holder, or a council officer?

And are there limits, or will the spending simply continue
indefinitely?

And why do none of our councillors ever question what is
going on?

Accounting for it is not enough.

***

Elsewhere in the list of expenditure, we see two big chunks
of money paid in “Voluntary Org Grants” for the first six months of the year –
each totalling £16,250.

What are these voluntary organisations, who runs them, and
to what use is the money put?

If these payments continue at the same rate they will total £65,000
in a full year.

If the beneficiaries of the money
include the five neighbourhood schemes that began life as Placecheck projects, then there are still more interesting questions about the way
that our taxes are being circulated and spent.

A recent application to the Boston Town Area Committee from
a Placecheck group that wanted to install a CCTV camera on a playing field said
that it had agreed to contribute £2,250 toward the borough council’s costs and
wanted the committee to given it the outstanding £3,800.

Is this a classic example of robbing Peter to pay Paul – as it
would appear that Boston Borough Council gives these groups money and they in turn
pay
it back to the council, whilst begging for more from a committee famed
for wasting taxpayers’ money.

We suppose it keeps the bureaucrats busy.

Again it is not enough merely to say – we are giving away £65,000
to “vol org” groups.

Transparency is one thing – accountability is quite another.

***

Then there are the other “bits and bobs” that
accrue across a year.

Not that long ago we mentioned £3,000 being spent on Mayoral
dinners - and now we note further £1,800 on a Mayoral lunch and room
hire.

Members of the council pay great homage to the idea of a
first citizen – although we have had some corkers in the past that we could
well have done without.

But the office still guzzles up a figure getting on for
£100,000 a year, and therefore we hope that it is kept under
regular review when savings need to be made – although somehow we doubt it.

A bigger bit and bob
was the cost of a webcast, which can only have been for the planning
committee that decided to rubber stamp the Quadrant planning development.

The cost of “webcast 50%” (why? Ed) and “satellite costs
100%” was a staggering £4,215 – something like a thousand pounds an hour to
present.

It would be very interesting to know how many people
watched the meeting on their computers – assuming that figures are available.

If they are not, then it seems to be a dreadful waste of
money to spend so much on something where no value for money statistics are
available.

The money was paid to a company called Flingbrook, which has
its offices in Berkshire, and which numbers companies such as Channel 4,
Boots, Google, Santander and Topman among its clients.

No wonder it cost so much!

Was there nowhere closer to home, or cheaper?

click to enlarge

Recently, a county council not too far from Lincolnshire
looked into this and found that certainly as far as costs were concerned, it
could be done far more cheaply.

South Holland District Council, meanwhile, has been
webcasting for some time using an organisation called Public-I which has been
providing a service to local councils since 2000.

SHDC currently has planning committee meetings for the six
months from April in its archives, and we find it hard to believe that they
have paid more than £4,000 a time for the coverage.

Webcasting Boston Borough Council meetings would be a good
idea, as they are so poorly covered in the local “newspapers.”

The problem is that it would also highlight the lacklustre
performances by many councillors and the total absence of any engagement by
others.

Perish the thought, but we might also see a bit of
grandstanding in some quarters as well.

With an election not many months away we think that our
so-called leaders will prefer to lie low rather than lie in public!

***

Last of all, down at the cheap end of the July spending are
two items that raised an Eyebrow.

A “crowd modelling” training course cost £650. Crowd
modelling? We’re not entirely sure, but we think it’s to do with managing panic
stricken people at the scene of major disasters and the like.

Best to be prepared, we suppose.

Last – and by all means least – we note the entry on the
monthly spending list which reports, with absolutely no sense of irony at all …
£1,000 spent on “hire of bus for healthy walks.”

***

At a recent council event we hear that our MP Mark Simmonds
told guests who expressed their sorrow at his departure from parliament at the
next election that he would still be living in the area as his next job will be here.

Which got us wondering.

We doubt that Mr Simmonds plans to follow his own advice to
people who find themselves out of work and sign on at a local packhouse.

Nor do we think that he is likely to pursue his previous
line of work and become an estate agent. Not only are there plenty of those in
Boston already, but commission on prices in this part of the world is scarcely
enough to regenerate the huge income he currently enjoys at Westminster.

So what’s left?

Mr Simmonds’ most recent political duties as a minister took
him frequently to Africa, which is rather far removed from Lincolnshire.

However prior to election victory in 2010 our MP was a shadow
health minister between 2003 and 2004 and again between 2007 and 2010.

Between 2010 and 2012 he became a “strategic adviser” to Circle
Healthcare (social enterprise), which ended when he was appointed a
minister – and was paid £12,500 quarterly for ten hours a month.

That’s £50,000 a year for 120 hours … £415 an hour.

Circle already has strong connections with the Conservative Party.

Its investors are also party donors and have given money to
MP’s offices. They include Robin Odey of Odey Asset Management, who has donated
to the offices of Nicholas Soames, Jacob Rees-Mogg and Kwasi Kwarteng who used
to work for Odey Management as an analyst, and Jo Johnson, head of the Number
10 policy unit.

Circle calls itself an “employee co-owned partnership” where
doctors and nurses are in charge of its hospitals, and are “owners” of the
business.

The company’s best known acquisition is most probably
Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire which it took over from the NHS when
it was consistently near the bottom of the 46 trusts, but which now has one of
the highest levels of patient satisfaction in the country.

It is said that the takeover deal, which saved the hospital
from closing down, is seen as a blueprint for the future of many NHS trusts.

So are Mr Simmonds hints about remaining in Lincolnshire
connected with his CV in health?

In July, United Lincolnshire Hospitals Trust – which runs
Boston’s Pilgrim Hospital – was told that it must spend another six months in
special measures because it was still failing to deliver acceptable standards
of care.

Time will tell, but Mr Simmonds would clearly be a viable
candidate if the Lincolnshire UHT went the way of Hinchingbrooke Hospital and
was privatised – whilst his one-time fee from Circle would work out at
a full time equivalent of a handsome
£16,650 a week

***

The issue of Boston’s troubled roads continues to rumble on.

After last week’s Boston
Eye blog, the county’s Head of Road Chaos (HORC) Councillor Richard Davies, came in for some stick and was challenged over why his patch
and others warranted overnight work but not Boston.

The initial response was to say that “in this instance it
wasn't possible,” – but at least Councillor Davies declared that he was
returning to Boston this week “to look into reports of lack of contractor activity” which we have to say has been noticeable
whenever road works are carried out in the town.

He also rejected charges that Lincoln was out of touch with
the town, saying: “Our depot and local office is in Boston - there's no simple
answer to congestion. Clearly you'd rather inactivity.”

Actually, inactivity – in terms of not being able to drive
through the town other than in first gear – is exactly what we are complaining
about.

Later, Councillor Davies tried the time-honoured political
stunt of pointing the finger of blame elsewhere, and shooting the messenger.

Whilst he admitted that “we could do a much better job
explaining” he added “but it would help if some commentators would explore more
before commenting.”

As the only source on this issue was Boston Eye, we have no doubt to whom he was referring.

For the record, we made little by way of comment, merely
reported – unlike our local “newspapers” – the exchanges between Councillor
Davies and Boston county councillors, and references from his social media page
announcement regarding overnight working.

We’re afraid that if his comments lacked some information, then
he should seek to make himself clearer.

After all that, it was entertaining to have our sense of schadenfreude
piqued by a story in Councillor Davies’ home base of Grantham

The Grantham Journal
reported that “the councillor responsible for roads has apologised for traffic
in the town grinding to a halt this morning.

“Patching work … led to congested roads in the centre of
town and traffic moving at a snail’s pace along High Street and roads running
off it.

“Councillor Richard Davies, who represents Grantham North
West on the county council and is portfolio holder for highways, said the
council needs to improve upon how it maintains the roads.

“Councillor Davies said: ‘I am sorry about the disruption
this morning. We are trying to improve this as we speak. We need to be more focussed on
the road user, but overall the objective is to address the necessary
road repairs in the town and we cannot do that without some disruption.’”

It’s good to see that our roads supremo is a multitasker
when it comes to delivering delay – but as we said last week, plus
ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

***

On Sunday, we noticed a distinct increase in the amount of
traffic out and about – due largely, we suspect, to the fact that it is
currently the only day of the week when it should be possible to do shopping
that requires the use of a car. Sadly, a pedestrian was involved in an accident
on John Adams Way near Haven Bridge where the road works are being carried out,
which again saw traffic tailed back all the way through the town to Horncastle
Road.

Whilst we appreciate the difficulties in such circumstances,
it ought not to be beyond the wit of the authorities to manage traffic flow
more efficiently on such occasions.

Similarly, we noted social media comments about problems
caused by frustrated drivers blocking the roundabouts.

It may be selfish, but in light of the ham-fisted handling
of the roadworks by Lincolnshire Clownty Council it is to a degree
understandable.

How about some temporary traffic lights to manage the flow –
or is that a little too avant garde for the folk at County
Hall?

***

Three Boston borough councillors – all of them former
members of the Boston Bypass Independents – wrote to the Boston Standard, a “newspaper” that is published weakly, to add their
threepenn’orth to the debate, declaring that any restriction in traffic flow on
Haven Bridge needed to be managed carefully to avoid the chaos we are currently
experiencing.

They added – as have many others – that “We are sure that in
Lincoln any such road works would have been carried out at night.

The letter, signed by Councillors Helen Staples, Richard
Austin and David Watts (sic) challenged Lincolnshire County Council leader Martin Hill, and
his highways henchman Councillor Richard Davies to visit Boston and find
out at first hand the damage done to our economy “by the bad management of highways
works.”

***

Their letter angered a reader who e-mailed Boston Eye to attack “the hypocritical
condemnations” in the letter.

“How do people such as these dare to have the temerity to
spout such ill-conceived drivel,” he continued.

“They conveniently fail to admit the disaster caused by them
by failing to deliver the original and main key element of their own political
policy.

“To now complain about the obvious inadequacy and grinding
congestion being suffered in, on, and around our local roads, is nothing short
of idiotic hypocrisy.

“Why do they not come clean and admit they literally threw
away the best chance this borough ever had of resolving the traffic chaos, and
admitting it was they who are to blame for failing to deliver in
the first place!

“The very mention of the word road should stick in
their throats!”

***

The letter also prompted a response from a group of
councillors from all parties harking back to the pre-2007 days to “contradict” the
assertion that nothing had been done to secure a bypass for Boston before the
arrival of the BBI.

Because there was no European funding for road building, but
funds were available for “regeneration
schemes,” references to a bypass/relief road/distributor road or whatever,
appeared under yet another euphemism – that of “regeneration corridor.”

This apparently assuages the collective conscience of the
councillors “serving” between 2000 and the arrival of the BBI.

What a shame that our so-called politicians are so concerned
with calling a spade anything but a spade that this gobbledygook probably did
more to obscure what was being sought for the town rather than making it clear.

Frankly, we think that all previous administrations are
guilty of incompetence – hence the need to try to provide a whitewash.

***

Interestingly, at the recent meeting of Lincolnshire County
Council another former BBI member – county and Boston borough councillor Alison
Austin – insisted that “no-one in the past has ever promised to
deliver a bypass for Boston.”

However, this does appear to be at odds with the declaration
by the BBI after its landslide victory
in Boston in 2007, which said: “Boston Bypass Independents were elected … on a
manifesto of getting Boston moving by getting a bypass built for Boston.
We were accused by our opponents of being a single issue party but the
electorate soon saw through this political smokescreen, voting the old guard
out and a virtually brand new council in to power.”

The statement certainly appears to be unambiguous – but then
again we’re talking politics and politicians here, so anything goes.

***

The present traffic chaos – chin up … there’s only another
four or five weeks to go – has reminded many people that a bypass was
on the cards … and not that long ago, either.

Readers tell us that there were plans to bridge the River
Haven at the High Street and that this went further with compulsory purchase of
land and property in the area. We believe that the money ran out before any was
really spent, but it is salutary to think how different things might have been
had the work happened. Any readers' recollections of those days are warmly welcomed.

Instead, all we have is the John Adams Way – a “bypass” that
is unique in that it runs through the centre of the place it is supposed to be
bypassing.

It could only happen in Boston.

***

One thing that can be said is that we will never get a
bypass unless we make a big fuss. In 2007 the BBI polled 16,294 votes out of a
total of 31,333 based on a poor turnout of 36.9%.

Clearly the people of Boston really wanted a bypass – and judging
by the current pressure of public opinion they still do.

Yet an e-petition on the government website calling
for a bypass has so far only attracted 1,080 signatures.

The petition will remain on-line until the end of March next
year, and if you would like to sign it, you can do so by clicking here

Signing it won’t achieve anything at government level – but
if enough people do, we will at least have some clear evidence of the strength
of opinion to show them at Clownty Hall.

Meanwhile, a recent statement from South Holland District
Council planners reports that the cost of phase two of the Spalding Western Relief
Road is £95.6m.

Boston residents will be delighted to know that the application
was funded by Lincolnshire County Council “through its budget targeted at
schemes that will support the future prosperity of Lincolnshire,” adding that
“Spalding is expected to experience future traffic growth in line with the rest
of the UK.

The answer appears to be that if you want a bypass – move to
Spalding.

***

Meanwhile, parking is still an issue around the place – even
though there is ample time to leave your vehicle in traffic, go shopping or to
the bank, and return to your car to find it just where you left it.

In a desperate attempt to earn a little goodwill, Boston
Borough Council has announced plans for “a huge early Christmas present” for
the town.

“To help boost the all-important Christmas shopping trade”
the council is to remove "all charges on all car parks on some of the biggest
festive shopping days."

We already have a question about this, as Worst Street subsequently mentions that the "gift" applies to "all borough council-controlled car parks."

Whether this will include the five off street car parks
owned by Lincolnshire County Council is
not clear – but they are the areas that will be most popular in the run-up to
Christmas – Market Place, Wide Bargate, Pump Square, South Square and
Station Approach.

However, the free parking dates include the famously festive Thursday, November 27,
when the town’s Christmas lights are being switched on, and the equally celebratory Thursdays,
December 4th 11th and 18th.

On all of these dates parking is freefrom 4pm.

On Saturday, December 6 – Small Business Saturday, apparently – parking will be free all day,
as it will be on Sundays November 30th, December 7th, 14th and 21st.

And Christmas Eve will also see free all day parking.

Given the greed with which the leadership normally embraces
car parking income, this certainly ranks alongside the epiphany of Ebenezer Scrooge
after his ghostly visitations.

Council leader, Pete Bedford, said: “The aim of all this is
to welcome as many people as possible into the town to help Boston businesses following
the floods of last year which, for too many, marred Christmas.”

And Councillor Derek “Knocker” Richmond, portfolio holder
for the town centre and car parks, chimed in: “This represents a Christmas
present from the council to Boston. The town has a tremendously varied shopping
offer – from small family-owned traditional retailers through to main
multi-nationals. With free parking located conveniently close there should be
no reason to want to go anywhere else.”

Close – but no cigar, as they say.

If the idea is, as Councillor Bedford says, to help Boston
business, then it is too late by several months. Not only that, but our local
businesses need the support of the local council all year round – not just a
bit of tokenism at Christmas.

And – varied as Boston’s shopping offer is – Councillor
Richmond is well wide of the mark to think that free parking for a few hours
late in the day will erase any need to shop elsewhere.

We’re afraid that both men are over-egging the Christmas
pudding.

Car parking income in Boston is no longer the cash cow it
once was, and whilst this “huge” gift will save shoppers a few bob, it is by no
means as generous as the council would like it to seem.

But there is, of course, an election on the way, isn’t
there?

Interestingly, the council is now looking at either leasing
replacement car park ticket machines or buying new ones for more than £100,000 –
with maintenance costs of £10,000 a year, which it seems will inevitably mean
even higher charges.

More on that next week

***

As a sidebar to the parking issue, we sometimes wonder if
Boston’s problems will ever be solved.

Not for the first time, a reader e-mails to tell us: “It
appears someone at Lincoln has issued orders that foreign drivers are exempt from
parking restrictions. Surely under the Freedom of Information act we are
entitled to know who issued this order.

"As an example a white transit van blatantly breaks the law
in Red Lion street in Boston. For about a year I have contacted local
councillors, county councillors and even the police commissioner for
Lincolnshire, but every one passes the buck.”

Perhaps the attention of our civil enforcement office is
elsewhere. Last week during a visit to the Market Place, we noticed one of them
enjoying a merry chat with some craft stallholders, while illegally parked cars
lined the row of planters that help make the place look such a mess.

As we emerged from a shop twenty minutes later, he was in
the self-same position – as were the parked, unticketed cars.

***

In other market towns around the county, councils take a
different view of parking. In Market Rasen, for example – a winner of Portas
Pilot funding which is apparently proving a success – parking is free.

And in Sleaford, forward looking North Kesteven District Council plans more than
100 new, cheap, long-stay car parking spaces in the south of the town to
support local businesses costing between £1 and £2 a day.

***

Last week’s mention of an alleged abuse of car parking privileges by a councillor has
prompted a letter from Independent Councillor Carol Taylor, who says: “Allow me
to put you straight regarding your description "get-out-of-jail-free"
councillor car parking pass.

“It doesn't get us out of jail, suggesting that we break the
law and get away with it – we don't!

“The individual concerned who has allegedly refused to pay a
parking fine for taking up two spaces is in a minority. Our parking permits are
used solely for council business when we are working in our ward areas or with
ward residents.

“We are not allowed to park in the market place or the two
central car parks at Wide Bargate, not even on council business. We are also
not allowed to use our pass if we park to go shopping for instance.

“Many of us work hard in our wards and when visiting people
on council business we can use our permits. Boston borough councillors adhere
to the rules and regulations for the use of car parking permits.

“If it has been proven that a councillor has abused this
privilege then they should be dealt with accordingly, but please do not tar us
all with the same brush!”

***

Speaking of Christmas, and the switching on of lights, we
wonder what the future holds for the costly yet unimpressive deal signed by
Boston Borough Council three years ago, and which still has two years to run.

When the old lights were replaced the most the council could
scrape together was £25,000 – and the late but unlamented Boston Business
“Improvement” District agreed to stump up an extra £10,000 for the first two
years.

Now that the BID is no more, is the borough saddled with a £35,000 annual contract which at the time it said could not be afforded without extra help?

And what happens as far as Christmas lights are concerned
in the future?

***

As far as the
general election is concerned, there is little to report locally this week.

Boston is still listed as being among the seats most likely
to fall to UKIP, whilst the local Conservatives have published details on their
website of the “open primary” selection event on October 25th
between 1-30pm and 4-30pm, and which
they describe as “a US-style ‘Primary.’”

They’ve booked the Peter Paine Sports Centre for the
dog-hanging, which seems a little ambitious – particularly given the turnout
for a similar event in Clacton at which only
240 of the 67,000 eligible voters registered to attend … despite the national
interest and political controversy surrounding the seat.

To vote here you must register by 22nd October, live
in the Boston and Skegness constituency and be over 18.

Registering is not as straightforward as it could have been
if more than one of you would like to attend.

Whilst a drop-down box suggests that more than one ticket
may be ordered, that is not the case, as the choice is 1 … or 1.

So, if Mr and Mrs Voter want to attend, they need to fill
out individual applications – and they only have eight minutes in which to do
it, whilst a timer ticks cheerily down to let them know how much time is left.

Full e-mail and home addresses are mandatory, as is a demand
for the
applicant’s date of birth.

We’re not sure that such security is necessary, as somehow,
we don’t see many – if any – people wanting to try to sway the vote!

***

Meanwhile, travelling hopefully to arrive, we imagine, one
of the UKIP contenders for the Boston and Skegness constituency, Paul Wooding,
is now styling himself “UKIP PPC.”.

PPC is an abbreviation of Prospective Parliamentary
Candidate – a title that we have always understood to refer to a contender who
has triumphed in the selection process and is representing his or her
party at the general election.

Perhaps Mr Wooding knows something that we don’t.

***

We note that our leader’s contempt for local journalilsts
continues unabated. We recently picked up the September issue of the Simply Boston magazine – which is still
available even though we are in October.

The Peter’s Notes
page carried Councillor Bedford’s unashamed support for the approval of the
Quadrant Development two months ago, and a reminder that
grants were still available in connection with the December floods.

If the notes seemed familiar once again, it is because they were.

They first appeared in a letter to a local “newspaper”
on August 20th.

And the deadline for applying for the grants that Councillor
Bedford mentioned expired at the end of September!

***

What a delight to see Boston mentioned in last week’s Sunday Telegraph as boasting one of Britain’s
five best independent bookshops.

click to enlarge

Que?

Trident Booksellers, “is the only independent bookstore left
in Boston, which is desperately sad,” reported children’s writer
Jacqueline Wilson.

“It’s a bookstore and a café that sells new and used books.
It’s a great place for students to sit, to browse, to work on their computers
…” it waffles.

We must take a look, we thought, which is when we discovered
a slight snag.

A report in Monday’s Boston Daily Bore employed a sheaf of epithets to tell a story.

“Phew! … breaking ground …
a tough job .... the soil was rock hard ... because it was littered with
rocks … staff had to employ an iron bar and plenty of muscle and effort to
break through …”

And the nature of this Herculean task?

A hole, about three feet square and a foot deep, dug – no, excavated
– by three
men to house the £4,000 lump of stone that was intended to mark the
start of the First World War but will instead be dedicated on the 96th
anniversary of its conclusion.

Fittingly, given Boston Borough Council’s obsession with
medals, badges, scrolls and the like, everyone who contributed to
the semi-public appeal will be “honoured” with their names included on a “Scroll
of Honour.”

Given that the obelisk is to recognise the ultimate
sacrifice by the 843 local people who died in the Great War, is the idea of meriting a place on a
scroll of “honour” for opening one’s wallet a vulgar idea, or is it a
vulgar idea?

You can write to us at boston.eye@googlemail.com Your
e-mails will be treated in confidence and published anonymously if requested.

No comments:

Post a Comment

About the author

is written and edited by retired Lincolnshire born writer and broadcaster Malcolm Swire, who was brought up in London, where he began his career in journalism.
In the 1960s he joined the Boston Standard before returning to London to write for the UK’s national news agency, the Press Association – then based in Fleet Street.
He returned to Lincolnshire –where his family history goes back more than a century – in various public relations roles, before becoming a founder member of BBC Radio Lincolnshire,where he created the station's Go for Gold appeal,which raised hundreds of thousands of pounds for local charities.
Over the years, he read the news, presented programmes and retired from the BBC as the station's Programme Organiser and Deputy Managing Editor.
He started the Boston Eye blog in February 2007 and has vowed to continue until Boston Borough Council's leadership is all that it should be!
He has dug in for a long wait!